Just another WordPress.com site

Main menu

Monthly Archives: March 2014

Dear Prime Minister Abbott,

How low can you be in defending Racist Attorney-General George Brandis’ comment in the 21st century and by doing so, you are trying to bring back former Labor Racist Arthur Calwall’s slogan that “2 Wong don’t make a White”. May I proudly add that “2 Wongs do make 2 Whites” today as we all born equal.

‘People have a right to be bigots’: PM defends Attorney-General’s comments

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has defended comments made by Attorney-General George Brandis when he said Australians have the right to be bigots.

By – SBS

UPDATED YESTERDAY 5:00 PM

The federal Attorney-General says Australians have the right to be bigots as his government moves to repeal Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

The section makes it unlawful to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate a person on racial or ethnic grounds.

In a response to a question from Indigenous Labor Senator Nova Peris, Attorney General Senator George Brandis says Australians can speak their minds.

“People do have a right to be bigots you know. In a free country people do have rights to say things that other people find offensive or insulting or bigotted. Nevertheless Senator Peris may I point out to you that Section 18C in its current form does not prohibit racial vilification.”

Prime Minister Abbott said he supported Senator Brandis’ comments, adding that freedom of speech was to be “enjoyed”, even if it offended people.

“Of course this government is determined to try to ensure that Australia remains a free and fair and tolerant society, where bigotry and racism has no place,” Mr Abbott said. “But we also want this country to be a nation where freedom of speech is enjoyed.

It is sad that your government is attempting to amend the Racial Discrimination Act Section 18C. As the survey below shows any amendment will allow the media to freely insult variable races because of their colour, therefore we strongly urge you to drop the amendment without delay.

Migrants fear racism, being victims of crime

Australians are no longer just a weird mob – they are also seen as racist and discriminatory, a survey of new migrants says.

Asked to nominate what they ”least like” about Australia, racism and discrimination was listed among migrants’ chief concerns.

Those from non-English speaking backgrounds were almost twice as likely to report suffering discrimination than those from English-speaking countries.

Background a factor: Migrants from non-English speaking backgrounds were almost twice as likely to report discrimination in Australia. Photo: Ross Duncan

People from India or Sri Lanka were most likely to list prejudice as the least desirable aspect of Australians but a significant number of New Zealanders also complained of discrimination.

The Monash University study found many migrants fear walking alone at night or being a victim of crime.

The survey, to be released on Monday, is the latest in a series, Mapping Social Cohesion, funded by the Scanlon Foundation and the federal government. It is the first to allow researchers to compare the experience of recent migrants with the wider Australian population.

The survey shows migrants who have arrived in Australia over the past two decades often feel singled out because of their skin colour or faith and report a disturbing lack of trust, both in other people and political institutions compared with the rest of the population.

They are less likely to be politically engaged, despite been regularly tuned to news and current affairs in their new home.

Findings about the national character appear most stark. Asked what they ”most like” about Australia, barely 3 per cent of recent migrants describe Australians as ”caring, friendly, hospitable”, a dramatic drop from similar surveys in the 1990s. But the latest findings also point to migrants’ general satisfaction with their new home and the quality of services.

The study found migrants no longer experience isolation as in decades past. Technology, cheap airfares and geographic proximity keep recent arrivals connected with friends and family.

People from China and India are also far more likely to adopt Australian citizenship than those from Britain or North America.

Chinese-born Ming Liu, who moved to Melbourne from Beijing in 2006 as a confessed sports lover, said he had not suffered discrimination living in Australia.

But he said cultural misunderstandings did occur and could be taken ”too seriously”.

He played Australian rules after joining a club to make friends, had a baby girl, Anabelle, and recently joined the 94 per cent of Chinese-born migrants to Australia with at least a decade of residence who have become citizens. This compares with 71 per cent of those from Britain, 70 per cent of those from North America and 45 per cent of those from New Zealand.

Migration rates have doubled from the 1990s, shifting from an emphasis on family unification to job skills.

As the government prepares to strike down part of the Racial Discrimination Act, study author Andrew Markus said the findings showed recent migrants had continuing issues with discrimination.

”More than 40 per cent of recent arrivals from a number of Asian countries report experience of discrimination over the last 12 months,” he said. ”The issue for government is the message that will be conveyed by possible changes to the Racial Discrimination Act.”

Changes to race hate laws would ‘license public humiliation of people because of their race’

Political News

Date

March 18, 2014 – 10:59AM

The Abbott government would be ”licensing the public humiliation of people because of their race” if it changed certain sections in the Racial Discrimination Act.

In a strongly worded letter, a group of representatives from various minority communities responded to a report in The Australian newspaper, which speculated that the federal government proposed to remove the words “offend, insult, humiliate” from section 18C of the race hate laws.

The report also said that the government could also remove the requirement that a defendant must have acted “reasonably and in good faith” in order to be covered by the free speech defences available under section 18D.

The representatives from the Aboriginal, Greek, Jewish, Chinese, Arab, Armenian and Korean communities said in the letter that they ”vehemently opposed” the changes.

”These changes would mean that the federal government has decided to license the public humiliation of people because of their race,” said Peter Wertheim, the executive director of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry.

”It would send a signal that people may spout racist abuse in public, no matter how unreasonably and dishonestly.

”It would be astonishing if an Australian government in the 21st century was prepared to embrace such a morally repugnant position.

”It would be utterly indefensible.”

Reacting to the story, a source told Fairfax Media that Senator Brandis was floating a ”trial balloon” to test the extent of public backlash against his proposed changes to the race hate laws.

Senator Brandis has a close relationship with conservative columnist Andrew Bolt, and believes Bolt was mistreated by the courts when he was found to have breached section 18C for an article he wrote about light-skinned Aborigines.

Indigenous Liberal MP Ken Wyatt threatens to vote against his own party if proposed changes to Racial Discimination Act go ahead

ELLEN WHINNETT – HERALD SUN – MARCH 18, 20149:00PM

DISSENT has erupted within the Federal Coalition over proposals to repeal a section of the Racial Discrimination Act, with indigenous MP Ken Wyatt threatening to cross the floor and vote against his own party if the move goes ahead.

The Government has promised to repeal the so-called “Andrew Bolt provision’’ of the Racial Discrimination Act on the grounds that it curtails free speech.

Herald Sun columnist Mr Bolt was successfully sued for racial vilification under section 18c of the Act over comments he made about light-skinned Aboriginal people.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott told his partyroom yesterday that he believed every member in the room believed in free speech and “everybody in the room is against racism.’’

“Everybody in this room thinks Andrew Bolt should not have been prosecuted,’’ he told colleagues.

Attorney-General George Brandis is leading the charge to repeal section 18c, which criminalises acts which were “reasonably likely …. to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group of people.’’

But WA-based Mr Wyatt told his colleagues he would oppose any move to repeal laws which criminalised vilification.

Dreyfus says govt backing on RDA repeal

AAP – MARCH 16, 2014 11:57AM

SHADOW attorney-general Mark Dreyfus says the government is backing away from threats it made in opposition to repeal the section of the Racial Discrimination Act used to prosecute News Corp Australia columnist Andrew Bolt.

Mr Dreyfus said the Bolt case and other decisions over the past 20 years made clear the provision was for significant cases of racial discrimination, not mere slights, and only the most serious ended up in court.

He said it was hard to read coalition proposals to repeal Section 18C of the act as anything other than pandering to Mr Bolt.

“The idea that just because one right-wing commentator should have been found to have contravened the provision, that we should chuck out something that has served Australia very well over nearly 20 years, I find actually offensive,” he told Sky News.

“I am very pleased that there is some back-pedalling on the part of George Brandis and Tony Abbott and so there should be.”

Section 18C prohibits statements that tend to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” people based on race and ethnicity.

It was used to prosecute Mr Bolt over his article saying some “fair-skinned Aboriginals” chose to identify as Aboriginal for personal gain.

Mr Dreyfus said Mr Bolt failed to make out a defence of free speech and despite claims that he would appeal, he had not.

He said the government appeared to be back-pedalling because of a groundswell of community support for the legislation, including from some coalition MPs.

10 Ex-Howard Government Ministers Who Moved Into The Lobbying Industry

The installation of a new Coalition government has brought former Howard government figures out of the cold shadow of the Labor years and back into the warmth of the right side of politics.

Not that the former politicians have been idle. Many have a portfolio of gigs with paid company board positions, advisory roles with industry and interest groups plus the odd not-for-profit.

And they should get a lot busier as companies and interest groups seek an insider perspective on the workings of a Coalition government and some insight into the political process.

The government relations industry, which once worked all flavours of governments, has become increasingly politically specialised in recent years. Firms tend to have strong expertise on either the conservative side of politics or the Labor camp.

Some do both, and some even have senior politicians from both major parties on the books. Look at Bespoke Approach which has Liberal Alexander Downer, Australia’s longest-serving foreign minister, plus Labor Senator Nick Bolkus. The only thing in common is that they come from South Australia.

Justin Di Lollo, a long-time lobbyist and current head of government relations companies at STW Group, says companies should ask themselves if using figurehead politicians is the right approach for their needs. He regards them as “little more than a marketing tool.”

“There’s a big question over whether they can be effective,” Di Lollo said.

“What clients want now is analysis, to be able to fully understand their exposure to government and what the opportunities are and how to exploit them.

“They also need an active advocacy and that’s very much a full time gig. To have a part-time chairman with their photo on the website isn’t much help to anybody except for marketing services.”

David Gazard, a director and founder of ECG Advisory Solutions and ECG Financial, has Peter Costello, Australia’s longest serving treasurer, as chairman of ECG Financial. Costello is an investor and was was involved in setting up both ECG businesses.

Gazard doubts if any of the former politicians at government relations firms actually do simple lobby work like picking up a phone and setting up meetings. Others perform those tasks. The experienced ministers, he says, will give broad, strategic advice.

“They obviously bring a huge depth of knowledge on regulatory issues, on legislative issues and on the broader impact of politics,” he says. “They are a deep wellspring. The more senior they are the better.”

Business seeking regulatory changes or government backing need insights on the more sophisticated drivers of public policy and politics. Costello, as a former Treasurer, has deep knowledge on competition policy, foreign investment, tax policy and how these affect the political process.

Here’s who the other former Coalition politicians are, what they’re doing and which interests (according to the lobbyist register) their firms represent:

Peter Costello, Australia’s longest serving Treasurer and a former deputy leader of the Liberal Party, is currently chairman of ECG Financial Pty Ltd, a Melbourne-based boutique adviser on mergers and acquisitions, foreign investment, competition and regulatory issues. ECG was founded by Jonathan Epstein, a finance specialist and David Gazard, a journalist. Customers include Wesfarmers, Coles and Westpac. Costello was recently appointed by the government as Chairman of The Future Fund, which he established in 2006 when he was Treasurer under John Howard. He is also on the board of Nine Entertainment and is chairman of the Independent Advisory Board to the World Bank.

Nick Minchin, a former finance minister, became a special adviser at Bespoke Approach, an advisory firm which covers several flavours of politics, including Labor and Liberal. Former Liberal foreign minister Alexander Downer is there as in former Labor Senator Nick Bolkus. Both are South Australians and Minchin was a Liberal Senator for South Australia. Nick Minchin, however, will depart Australia, and his government relations role, for a full-time gig as Consul-General in New York where his day job will be to sell Australia to the Big Apple.

Peter Reith, a former defence minister, Workplace Relations Minister and Deputy Opposition Leader, is at First State which offers corporate and government relations to groups wanting to “develop strategic links with local, state or federal governments and with other businesses”. First State has 36 clients including engineering services group Thiess, computer giant Dell, and global adverting group Young & Rubicam. Reith was a director of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development based in London between 2003 and 2009.

Michael Wooldridge, Australia’s longest serving health minister and a former Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, is with The Strategic Counsel, a specialist in the health and medical technology sectors. Its customers include Roche, Blackmores, Australian Pharmaceutical Industries and the Cancer Drugs Alliance.

Alexander Downer, Australia’s longest serving former foreign minister, is one arm of three South Australians running advisory group Bespoke Approach. The second is Labor Senator Nick Bolkus and the third is Ian Smith, a former journalist, public relations executive and political adviser. Smith is married to former Democrat Leader Natasha Stott Despoja. Downer’s days at the firm are likely numbered: he is widely tipped to be the next Australian High Commissioner in London. When confirmed, the role will be a very sweet one for Mr Downer. His father, Sir Alec, was Australia’s High Commissioner from 1963 to 1972.

Helen Coonan, the former New South Wales Liberal senator is a former communications minister, assistant treasurer, minister for revenue and deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, is co-chair of Government Relations Australia. The other co chair is John Dawkins, the former Labor treasurer. Among the firm’s clients are Bupa, Clemenger BBDO, Aldi and Pacific Brands.

Santo Santoro, a Brisbane-based politician, a former federal Minister for Ageing and a state minister for Training and Industrial Relations, has established Santo Santoro Consulting. Customers include NEC, the Port of Brisbane and Infigen Energy. Santoro resigned from the Howard ministry in 2007 following a share scandal (he didn’t immediately declare shares he had in a biotechnology company when he was appointed to a health-related portfolio).

Larry Anthony, a former Liberal New South Wales MP, was federal Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Minister for Community Services and Parliamentary Secretary for Trade. He was one of three to establish the SAS Group in mid 2009 offering public affairs and government and business relations. Customers include Carabella Resources, ERM Power and Global Philanthropic.

Phil Baressi, a former Victorian Liberal MP from 1996 to 2007, is a Victorian director of SAS Consulting, and now CEO of the lobby group the Energy Users Association of Australia. He’s a former director of the Australian Retailers association.

Gary Humphries, known as Mr Canberra, is a former Chief Minister, Attorney-General and Treasurer of the Australian Capital Territory and a Liberal Senator in the national parliament. Under Tony Abbott, as Opposition Leader, Humphries was Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families, Housing and Human Services and Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship. He is now senior counsel at First State which has among its clients Thiess, computer giant Dell, and global adverting group Young & Rubicam.

Australia’s Race Discrimination Commissioner will challenge Tony Abbott for the first time on Monday over the Prime Minister’s push to water down racial vilification laws.

Tim Soutphommasane’s intervention in the debate will come in a speech he will deliver at the Australian National University, where he will warn the proposed change may ”licence racial hatred”.

”It may encourage people to think there is no harm in dealing out racial vilification,” he will say, according to a copy of the speech obtained by Fairfax Media.

He will contest the notion there is a compelling case for change and criticise those he labels the ”thick skin brigade”.

”[They say] let good speech override bad speech, let there be an open contest and put our faith in the goodness of our fellow citizens … There is in such arguments a certain naive optimism,” he says. ”We cannot realistically expect that the speech of the strong can be countered by the speech of the weak.”

Victims of racial abuse may absorb the message of hate and inferiority. ”Those who are unfamiliar with the wounding power of racism may dismiss this as superficial complaints about words,” he says.

”There remains what I call the ‘thick-skin brigade’ – those who would declare, ‘sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me’.

”This is the brigade that believes the only racism that warrants our public attention is the kind that involves physical violence, that believes racial vilification is at best an ersatz racism that troubles only effeminate citizens concerned with inconsequential feelings.

”Members of the ‘thick-skin brigade’ belong to the middle ages, to a time when the law was indeed confined to offering remedies only for physical interference with life and property, when the law only recognised that liberty only meant a protection from battery, when property would still be referred to as land and chattels.”

Dr Soutphommasane will use the speech to put ”a human face” on racial vilification. He says a person who witnesses an ugly incident of racism may gain a new appreciation of the harm it causes.

”It is not clear to me, at least, how someone who has been called a ‘coon’ or ‘boong’ or ‘gook’ or ‘chink’ or ‘curry muncher’ or ‘sandnigger’ should be grateful to a bigot for giving them the opportunity to improve their soul.

”It seems perverse to say that we must all tolerate hate, when not everyone has to bear the burden of tolerance in the same way.”

Dr Soutphommasane says the proposition that any restriction of speech is demeaning, even to those it aims to protect, does not stand up to scrutiny.

”In the current debate about the Racial Discrimination Act, numerous communities have spoken out against any change to existing legislation,” he says.

”To the views put forward by those who believe any restrictions on speech can demean and offend the dignity of those whom we desire to protect from harm, we may question what is more likely to amount to infantilising our fellow citizens. Is it to have protections against hate speech? Or is it to tell some communities that in spite of what they say, that we may know better what is in their interests?”

Dr Soutphommasane was appointed by the Labor government in July to oversee the Racial Discrimination Act.

The controversial section is 18C which makes it unlawful to do something reasonably likely ”to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone on racial grounds.

Conservative commentator Andrew Bolt fell foul of this section in 2011 after accusing several fair-skinned Aborigines of identifying as indigenous to claim benefits only open to Aboriginal people.

In 2012 Mr Abbott said if the Coalition won the election he would repeal section 18C ”in its current form”. Attorney-General George Brandis has pledged to amend this section.